An Anonymous Coward writes:
Looks like Assange may go from the loving arms of the Ecuadorian Embassy to London's finest cell when he is evicted, which is now imminent.
UK police outside Ecuador embassy amid WikiLeaks tweets
Also at The Hill.
Ecuador denies WikiLeaks claim it plans to release Julian Assange
The Ecuadorian government on Friday rejected claims by WikiLeaks that founder Julian Assange would be ousted from his sanctuary at the country's embassy in London "within hours to days."Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement released Friday that the allegation was "an attempt to stain the dignity of the country," according to an NBC News translation. Ecuador "has made significant expenditures to pay for his stay" and has "endured its rudeness," the ministry continued.
The Ecuadorian government on Friday rejected claims by WikiLeaks that founder Julian Assange would be ousted from his sanctuary at the country's embassy in London "within hours to days."
Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement released Friday that the allegation was "an attempt to stain the dignity of the country," according to an NBC News translation. Ecuador "has made significant expenditures to pay for his stay" and has "endured its rudeness," the ministry continued.
Original Submission #1
Original Submission #2
It always confuses me why people get so snarky about Assange. It's as if they've got a personal stake in the "big brothering" of themselves, their own electoral disenfranchisement (at least if they're on the Democrat side).
He threw whistleblowers under the train, then fled from charges, got "friends" to pay his bail and promptly skipped bail, and now evades the law at my expense (as a UK taxpayer).
I don't blame the judiciary for that... we can't afford to let people just thumb their nose at the law because they cost a lot to chase, but we literally had NO INTEREST in him beyond a European Arrest Warrant that we were obliged to act upon (and sent back TWICE because it wasn't correct). And now he's living at... whose expense? As an outlaw. In the UK. Requiring police action and judicial costs. For someone who bails out on his friends, and has nothing else redeeming about him.
I don't care about the whole US/Sweden thing as literally NOTHING happened that way. Nothing. But a UK court said "Okay, we trust you, we'll hold onto this money in exchange for you staying around" and he *ran*. But couldn't even do that properly. And then is literally on the news almost every week, crowing about how he's hard done by, isn't being treated well (when it's entirely self-inflicted AND at other's expense), etc.
Wake up, get out, do your time for skipping bail, deal with the charges (if ANY) against you. Then you can earn some basic respect for facing up to your accusers. Until then, he's just a criminal on the run.
You over there in Airstrip One could just drop the whole futile show about skipping bail and whatever and deport him to Australia as an undesirable foreigner if he is discovered outside the embassy. Or ignore his being shipped in a diplomatic car to the airport and then on a flight to Ecuador.
But you're not. Because your former colony is pulling your puppet strings to keep him ready for extraditing, and at least to hold him unable to act.
So the UK is obliged to keep the Equadorian embassy under constant watch? For skipping bail for charges that have been dropped? I know conservatives shiver with excitement to serve power, but that's just embarrassing.
The skipping bail charges HAVE NOT been dropped.
What charges he was facing *TO* skip bail were dropped. But he skipped court bail. That's basically contempt of court, whether or not he was innocent of the original charges or they were dropped. He promised the court he'd be a good boy and not run off. He didn't. So the UK court still have an arrest warrant out for him.
It's like saying that charges for punching a policeman in the face should be dropped, because you did it while he was trying to arrest you for littering, and you didn't actually litter. Nobody cares. You still go to court for that OTHER, completely unrelated charge, because you're an idiot.
So... Assange says the charges were BS and manufactured to get him into custody and potential extradition AS HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROVED TO BE THE CASE (actually, it was also known at the time... One of Australias premier investigative teams [abc.net.au] went to Sweden, and discovered exactly how shady and irregular these charges were. It has also been leaked that the US is preparing a case for his potential extradition in a secret court, and literally hundreds of people solely tasked with taking Wikileaks down.
So, in your view, the rare publishers and leakers brave enough to expose state criminality should lay their necks into the nooses prepared for them? I'm sure most people would rather be aware of the survelance state, be aware of the misappropriation of their tax dollars to fund muslim extremists, be aware of their disenfranchisement etc... But you... begrudge the 24hr survelance Assange is put under so that Downing St can be seen to have a sufficiently brown nose?
Just stick that in there somewhere, would you. Thanks.
BTW, he certainly never threw whistleblowers under the train... quite the contrary actually. Unfortunately the Guardian, Luke Hardy in particular, has been a source of a lot of BS on this front. He was also a big international pusher of Russiagate. The interview he did with Aaron Mate should have forever destroyed his credibility... unlikely though, because he's pushing "approved" narratives.
Luke HARDING rather...
He said when he first ran that the UK just had to say "You will not be deported to the USA" and he would walk out the embassy. They have consistently weaseled out of saying that, and as a result he believes that as soon as he leaves the embassy, he's on a plane to Guantanamo. Not an unreasonable belief, considering that the UK has spent millions of pounds waiting to grab him.
I understand the point that he skipped bail, which is something judiciary takes a special interest in because it makes them look... usurptive... BUT
He threw whistleblowers under the train
No he didn't. That is a white lie. I will give you a pass for being ignorant but then you should question the person or place where YOU heard it.